1) Yeah, they probably did authorize it. I'm not all that hung up on this issue and I don't really see where it applies for this conversation.

2) Oh he certainly could climb higher. 6 years is a long time. There are other committees. There is certainly legislation he's going to want to get through Congress. There is quite a bit he could have "won" through brown-nosing.

3) Specter may have had this guy in mind to begin with or he may not have. Neither you or I can really say because we can't crawl into Specter's head. At the end of the day though he clearly believes this guy is the best person for the job. Shouldn't he hire the best person for the job for the American people?

1) It has to do with his consistent breaking of promises.

2) Specter won't go higher than Judiciary Chairman.

3) Stop this "it's what's best for the American people." stuff. The American people are tired of seeing politicians breaking promises. They could be served well by a conservative Republican.

Phil, you keep banging on this drum saying he consistently breaks promises but all you come up with is this position. You claim that somehow a campaign sign is also a broken promise but I think you're reaching.

Seriously, this sounds like you are bitter that not every position in government is filled by a conservative Republican.

I'm reaching? Did you not see the sign? Defend Specter all you want. It's obvious that he breaks promises. I won't sit here, wasting my time trying to convince the unconvincable.

Does he break promises?? Maybe. However, you seem to think that Specter should have automatically picked a Conservative Republican without a care if he was the best person for the job or not and only caring that he was a Conservative Republican. You can't seem to grasp the fact that someone who isn't a conservative Republican can do the job better.. Thats what this is about. Maybe hhe promised to pick a Conservative Republican, but in the end he felt that their was a better candidate who wans't a Conservative Republican so he went with the better candidate

1) Yeah, they probably did authorize it. I'm not all that hung up on this issue and I don't really see where it applies for this conversation.

2) Oh he certainly could climb higher. 6 years is a long time. There are other committees. There is certainly legislation he's going to want to get through Congress. There is quite a bit he could have "won" through brown-nosing.

3) Specter may have had this guy in mind to begin with or he may not have. Neither you or I can really say because we can't crawl into Specter's head. At the end of the day though he clearly believes this guy is the best person for the job. Shouldn't he hire the best person for the job for the American people?

1) It has to do with his consistent breaking of promises.

2) Specter won't go higher than Judiciary Chairman.

3) Stop this "it's what's best for the American people." stuff. The American people are tired of seeing politicians breaking promises. They could be served well by a conservative Republican.

Phil, you keep banging on this drum saying he consistently breaks promises but all you come up with is this position. You claim that somehow a campaign sign is also a broken promise but I think you're reaching.

Seriously, this sounds like you are bitter that not every position in government is filled by a conservative Republican.

I'm reaching? Did you not see the sign? Defend Specter all you want. It's obvious that he breaks promises. I won't sit here, wasting my time trying to convince the unconvincable.

Does he break promises?? Maybe. However, you seem to think that Specter should have automatically picked a Conservative Republican without a care if he was the best person for the job or not and only caring that he was a Conservative Republican. You can't seem to grasp the fact that someone who isn't a conservative Republican can do the job better.. Thats what this is about. Maybe hhe promised to pick a Conservative Republican, but in the end he felt that their was a better candidate who wans't a Conservative Republican so he went with the better candidate

Of course I want to see the best person for the job. I believe this guy is appointed to help the Republicans on the committee, correct? Do you think he'll help the Republicans? He has access to Republican files and briefings.

He breaks his promises. That's the fact you and everyone else here has to accept. Stop justifying his broken promises.

1) Yeah, they probably did authorize it. I'm not all that hung up on this issue and I don't really see where it applies for this conversation.

2) Oh he certainly could climb higher. 6 years is a long time. There are other committees. There is certainly legislation he's going to want to get through Congress. There is quite a bit he could have "won" through brown-nosing.

3) Specter may have had this guy in mind to begin with or he may not have. Neither you or I can really say because we can't crawl into Specter's head. At the end of the day though he clearly believes this guy is the best person for the job. Shouldn't he hire the best person for the job for the American people?

1) It has to do with his consistent breaking of promises.

2) Specter won't go higher than Judiciary Chairman.

3) Stop this "it's what's best for the American people." stuff. The American people are tired of seeing politicians breaking promises. They could be served well by a conservative Republican.

Phil, you keep banging on this drum saying he consistently breaks promises but all you come up with is this position. You claim that somehow a campaign sign is also a broken promise but I think you're reaching.

Seriously, this sounds like you are bitter that not every position in government is filled by a conservative Republican.

I'm reaching? Did you not see the sign? Defend Specter all you want. It's obvious that he breaks promises. I won't sit here, wasting my time trying to convince the unconvincable.

Does he break promises?? Maybe. However, you seem to think that Specter should have automatically picked a Conservative Republican without a care if he was the best person for the job or not and only caring that he was a Conservative Republican. You can't seem to grasp the fact that someone who isn't a conservative Republican can do the job better.. Thats what this is about. Maybe hhe promised to pick a Conservative Republican, but in the end he felt that their was a better candidate who wans't a Conservative Republican so he went with the better candidate

Of course I want to see the best person for the job. I believe this guy is appointed to help the Republicans on the committee, correct? Do you think he'll help the Republicans? He has access to Republican files and briefings.

He breaks his promises. That's the fact you and everyone else here has to accept. Stop justifying his broken promises.

Ummm. I thought his job was to pick the best candidate to help the ENTIRE COMMITTEE, NOT to pick the best person to help the Republicans on the committee

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

True. Of course the flip side of this is that the GOP should not have solicited such a promise from Specter. Obviously there will be a chance that "the best" isn't a Republican. They could be a Dem, a Repub, a Lib, a Green, or totally non-political.

Awesome! Now he's using Republican cash to hire far left wingers. Now I'll have to hear that it's techincally not Republican money but American money (since it's distributed by the American government) and he's doing what's best for America.

"The fact that Republican money is being used to hire hardcore leftists to work on the Judiciary Committee is just a travesty," a GOP aide said.

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"? My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign." I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"? My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign." I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"? My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign." I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't. And honestly, that isn't a point. If there was some explanation of that statement it would make sense. Otherwise it is just boring rhetoric probably by a 23 year old kid (as in a 23 y/o staffer).

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made). Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out. bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's. We really don't know what kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise. Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is. Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said. IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"? My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign." I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't.

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made). Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out. bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's. We really don't know what kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise. Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is. Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said. IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"? My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign." I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't.

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Ok, you tell me to "ask the GOP aides". I respond "I can't because I don't know any". Then you whine?

What Republican money is being spent? That isn't explained any where. It is just an offhand comment that makes little sense (lousy journalism by the website for not explaining it).

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"? My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign." I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't.

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Ok, you tell me to "ask the GOP aides". I respond "I can't because I don't know any". Then you whine?

What Republican money is being spent? That isn't explained any where. It is just an offhand comment that makes little sense (lousy journalism by the website for not explaining it).

Are you aware that these sources aren't just no-body aides? This is The Hill - one of the most well known, political newspapers in the country.

My point when I said "ask the aides" was that they knew about it and commented. Now you'll just refuse to believe it.

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"? My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign." I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't.

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Ok, you tell me to "ask the GOP aides". I respond "I can't because I don't know any". Then you whine?

What Republican money is being spent? That isn't explained any where. It is just an offhand comment that makes little sense (lousy journalism by the website for not explaining it).

Are you aware that these sources aren't just no-body aides? This is The Hill - one of the most well known, political newspapers in the country.

My point when I said "ask the aides" was that they knew about it and commented. Now you'll just refuse to believe it.

Tell ya what, email Alex Bolton (the writer of the article) and ask him to explain what Republican money is being referred to. When/If he responds add it to this thread. Also ask the approximate age of the "aide". His address is alexb@thehill.com

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made). Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out. bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's. We really don't know what kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise. Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is. Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said. IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

I didn't say that. What I said is no one really knows how much of a promise was really made. For all you know some of these people are just angry that he didn't pick a conservative so they said he promised it to start a controversy. maybe they are telling the truth, who really knows?

Also their are circumstances that neither of us know. Was Kremer even viable when this 'promise' was made (he was still with the NAACP), was their another conservative that was going to get the job and for some reason things didnt work out and Specter skipped to the next person. For all you know Specter could have had a conservative in mind for the job as his #1 and Kremer for his #2 or even lower, he made the promise thinking the #1 would get the job, but something went wrong with that # 1 (bad interview, decided against the positon, health reasons) who knows and Kremer got the position as result.

Anyway my whole point is I'm not so sure that Specter promised to give it to a conservative, could just be a few conservatives are ticked off at him for not picking a conservative so theey lashed out. Or he could have promised it to get the position, but had no intention of getting the comnservative. or he promised it, but things didn't work out with his 1st choice(s) or he promised it, but someone he felt was more qualified came along (I haven't seen you argue against Kremer's qualifications, HE IS QUALIFIED). Anyway all I'm saying is their are many possibilities of why Specter didn't choose a Conservative. Could it be what you suggested?? Yes, but it could be many other reasons as well.

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"? My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government. The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign." I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't.

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Ok, you tell me to "ask the GOP aides". I respond "I can't because I don't know any". Then you whine?

What Republican money is being spent? That isn't explained any where. It is just an offhand comment that makes little sense (lousy journalism by the website for not explaining it).

Are you aware that these sources aren't just no-body aides? This is The Hill - one of the most well known, political newspapers in the country.

My point when I said "ask the aides" was that they knew about it and commented. Now you'll just refuse to believe it.

Tell ya what, email Alex Bolton (the writer of the article) and ask him to explain what Republican money is being referred to. When/If he responds add it to this thread. Also ask the approximate age of the "aide". His address is alexb@thehill.com

Here's a suggestion: Since you have the concern, you email him. I have no problem with the story.

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made). Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out. bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's. We really don't know what kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise. Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is. Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said. IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

I didn't say that. What I said is no one really knows how much of a promise was really made. For all you know some of these people are just angry that he didn't pick a conservative so they said he promised it to start a controversy. maybe they are telling the truth, who really knows?

Also their are circumstances that neither of us know. Was Kremer even viable when this 'promise' was made (he was still with the NAACP), was their another conservative that was going to get the job and for some reason things didnt work out and Specter skipped to the next person. For all you know Specter could have had a conservative in mind for the job as his #1 and Kremer for his #2 or even lower, he made the promise thinking the #1 would get the job, but something went wrong with that # 1 (bad interview, decided against the positon, health reasons) who knows and Kremer got the position as result.

Anyway my whole point is I'm not so sure that Specter promised to give it to a conservative, could just be a few conservatives are ticked off at him for not picking a conservative so theey lashed out. Or he could have promised it to get the position, but had no intention of getting the comnservative. or he promised it, but things didn't work out with his 1st choice(s) or he promised it, but someone he felt was more qualified came along (I haven't seen you argue against Kremer's qualifications, HE IS QUALIFIED). Anyway all I'm saying is their are many possibilities of why Specter didn't choose a Conservative. Could it be what you suggested?? Yes, but it could be many other reasons as well.

If something mistakely "went wrong" with the conservative, why would major Republican leaders distance themselves from Specter right now? Why don't they defend him like they did in the past if they really feel something went wrong?

The Specetr defenses here have gotten a bit laughable. There are certain incontrovertible facts.

If Specter had not promised to back Bush's nominees and campaign for himm in the state, Bush would not have campaigned for himm in the Primaries and Toomey would have won that primary.

Specter did not campaign for Bush, nor is he backing a conservative judicial agenda. Had he told the truth, he would have lost.

If Specter had not promised to appoint conservatives to the committee staff and back Bush's nominees, the caucus would never have named him Chairman of Judiciary.

Speccter has nominated arch leftists to the staff and has admonished Bush for sending conservatives to the bench. Had he told the truth, he would not have become chairman.

Some, like me and Keystone, knew he was lying and never trusted him. But he did trick enough people to win the primary and then to become head of Judiciary. That makes him a liar, and it invalidates his victories to some extent because they were won by lying, and had he told the truth he'd have lost. That's reprehensible, and Democrats would not defend a pro-lfe Democrat who had done the same thing and they know it.

The Specetr defenses here have gotten a bit laughable. There are certain incontrovertible facts.

If Specter had not promised to back Bush's nominees and campaign for himm in the state, Bush would not have campaigned for himm in the Primaries and Toomey would have won that primary.

Specter did not campaign for Bush, nor is he backing a conservative judicial agenda. Had he told the truth, he would have lost.

If Specter had not promised to appoint conservatives to the committee staff and back Bush's nominees, the caucus would never have named him Chairman of Judiciary.

Speccter has nominated arch leftists to the staff and has admonished Bush for sending conservatives to the bench. Had he told the truth, he would not have become chairman.

Some, like me and Keystone, knew he was lying and never trusted him. But he did trick enough people to win the primary and then to become head of Judiciary. That makes him a liar, and it invalidates his victories to some extent because they were won by lying, and had he told the truth he'd have lost. That's reprehensible, and Democrats would not defend a pro-lfe Democrat who had done the same thing and they know it.

Few things here the reaspn bush supported Specter had nothing to do with any promises. They were soley political reasons of his own. bottom line is PA is a moderate state, it would not elect two hard-core righties to the Senate. Toomey gets the nod it brings out more of the leftest vote in the state and Bush's chances of winning the state go down. As far as specter not backing Bush's nominees. He has backed most of them, that doesn't mean he has to back and rubber stamp every single one. bottom line is Specter knows if Bush nominates hard-core righties their will be an issue in getting them the nomination so he basically said it would be a good idea to back off the hard-core righties and nominate judges which will have broader support as opposed to judges which will lead to a partisan bitch fest. The problem here is simple, Specter is a moderate Republican who sometimes thinks outside the box doesn't agree with everything Bush does, and is not going to rubberstamp the hard-core Conservatives bush wants to put through and because of that many conservatives are pissed.

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made). Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out. bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's. We really don't know what kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise. Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is. Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said. IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

I didn't say that. What I said is no one really knows how much of a promise was really made. For all you know some of these people are just angry that he didn't pick a conservative so they said he promised it to start a controversy. maybe they are telling the truth, who really knows?

Also their are circumstances that neither of us know. Was Kremer even viable when this 'promise' was made (he was still with the NAACP), was their another conservative that was going to get the job and for some reason things didnt work out and Specter skipped to the next person. For all you know Specter could have had a conservative in mind for the job as his #1 and Kremer for his #2 or even lower, he made the promise thinking the #1 would get the job, but something went wrong with that # 1 (bad interview, decided against the positon, health reasons) who knows and Kremer got the position as result.

Anyway my whole point is I'm not so sure that Specter promised to give it to a conservative, could just be a few conservatives are ticked off at him for not picking a conservative so theey lashed out. Or he could have promised it to get the position, but had no intention of getting the comnservative. or he promised it, but things didn't work out with his 1st choice(s) or he promised it, but someone he felt was more qualified came along (I haven't seen you argue against Kremer's qualifications, HE IS QUALIFIED). Anyway all I'm saying is their are many possibilities of why Specter didn't choose a Conservative. Could it be what you suggested?? Yes, but it could be many other reasons as well.

If something mistakely "went wrong" with the conservative, why would major Republican leaders distance themselves from Specter right now? Why don't they defend him like they did in the past if they really feel something went wrong?

because when the something that "went wrong" they wanted Specter to still pick a conservative regardless if Kremer was more qualified than the next conservative in line. They didn't care how qualified the person was as long as they were a Conservative, which seems like the way you think, as opposed to picking the best candidate. Aand your lack of response otherwise shows that although you don't want him there you know Kremer is highly qualified for the job

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial. Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him. You say that is a "broken promise". No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made). Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out. bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's. We really don't know what kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise. Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is. Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said. IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

I didn't say that. What I said is no one really knows how much of a promise was really made. For all you know some of these people are just angry that he didn't pick a conservative so they said he promised it to start a controversy. maybe they are telling the truth, who really knows?

Also their are circumstances that neither of us know. Was Kremer even viable when this 'promise' was made (he was still with the NAACP), was their another conservative that was going to get the job and for some reason things didnt work out and Specter skipped to the next person. For all you know Specter could have had a conservative in mind for the job as his #1 and Kremer for his #2 or even lower, he made the promise thinking the #1 would get the job, but something went wrong with that # 1 (bad interview, decided against the positon, health reasons) who knows and Kremer got the position as result.

Anyway my whole point is I'm not so sure that Specter promised to give it to a conservative, could just be a few conservatives are ticked off at him for not picking a conservative so theey lashed out. Or he could have promised it to get the position, but had no intention of getting the comnservative. or he promised it, but things didn't work out with his 1st choice(s) or he promised it, but someone he felt was more qualified came along (I haven't seen you argue against Kremer's qualifications, HE IS QUALIFIED). Anyway all I'm saying is their are many possibilities of why Specter didn't choose a Conservative. Could it be what you suggested?? Yes, but it could be many other reasons as well.

If something mistakely "went wrong" with the conservative, why would major Republican leaders distance themselves from Specter right now? Why don't they defend him like they did in the past if they really feel something went wrong?

because when the something that "went wrong" they wanted Specter to still pick a conservative regardless if Kremer was more qualified than the next conservative in line. They didn't care how qualified the person was as long as they were a Conservative, which seems like the way you think, as opposed to picking the best candidate. Aand your lack of response otherwise shows that although you don't want him there you know Kremer is highly qualified for the job

You know what. You're absolutley right. I wanted the least qualified person as long as they were a conservative. Pick a bum off the street for all I care. As long as the bum is conservative, I don't care! (NOTE THE SARCASM THERE, SMASH.)

I don't know if this Kremer guy is qualified or not. My argument is that you stand by someone who has broken his promises to his colleagues that elected.